Romney said, “America must once again lead the free world.” Yes, you can do that only if it is done in a peaceful and non-intrusive way.
Marshall said, “The only way you can win a war is to prevent it.” Please remember. (mtd1943)

Of all the VMI graduates, none is more distinguished, perhaps, than General George Marshall, the chief of staff of the Army who became secretary of state and secretary of defense, who helped to vanquish fascism and then planned Europe’s rescue from despair. His commitment to peace was born of his direct knowledge of the awful costs and consequences of war. General Marshall once said, quote, “the only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it.”

It looks you haven't read Romney, huh? At least you should thank the lady (k.a. gardner) who did it for you.
.
But how dared this evil Republican to make it first to the quote which the Left Agitprop wanted for themselves?! What a nerve!

The Economist being an European magazine should give some indepth analysis of how European colonialism in the middle-east which exploited and looted these countries for centuries and the despotic rulers they left behind in their wake has contributed to the dysfunctional societies in the Arab world.

After all most of these countries were either British or French or Italian colonies.

America had nothing to do with European colonialism in the middle-east but now has to deal with the consequences of it.

While Europeans sit back and criticize US foreign policy which tries to fix middle-east problems which the Europeans had a hand in creating.

"While Europeans sit back and criticize US foreign policy which tries to fix middle-east problems which the Europeans had a hand in creating" - your comment. There is some truth in what you say. However, the middle east is the home of all the 3 Abrahamic religions. Their problems began from the time of Abraham onwards. God may be the architect of the troubles over there - 1 God, 3 different prophets, 3 different holy books, 3 religions, and dozens of sects. He (if he is still around) needs to send another prophet to that region - just to clarify what HE really meant??

I get it, I get it, Barack Obama isn't the best and he hasn't come close to delivering. If I could vote to punish Obama I would.
Unfortunately I'm not faced with a choice between Obama with a mandate and Obama given a good lecture and a stint in the time-out chair. I have a choice between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. So tell me why I should vote for you since right now all I see opposite the current president is an empty suit and AIPAC's Hanukkah list.

Very messy blog post. Why is Lexington interjecting what Paul Ryan said in Ohio into Romney's Foreign Policy speech at VMI today? How did Romney add a "careful caveat" to what Paul Ryan should surely know, according to Lexington?

Sometimes I wonder whether there is any point to an article like this.

e.g.

"Is Mr Ryan really saying that the rage of flag-burning mobs is triggered by American weakness? Is he even saying that terrorism is triggered by American weakness? "

Yeah, perhaps Romney and Ryan are actually fools. Perhaps they really believe this tripe. No, what is more likely is that they know that nationalism and flag waving/burning are emotive subjects that get the crowd all riled up. Americans treat their flag like Muslims the Koran.

For Ryan to protest about flag burning is exactly equivalent to an Islamist shouting Allah Akhbar! It is just a content-free way to stir up nationalist anger/pride.

Except for the murdering, rioting, bombing, and setting stuff on fire. Get real, and get your head out of the sand. I'm embarrassed for you that you would make such a comment where strangers can read it.

"Except for the murdering, rioting, bombing, and setting stuff on fire."

Such delicious unintentional irony. In terms of bombing and setting stuff on fire, the Muslim world is only in the ha'penny place compared to the US.
Thanks for getting embarrassed for me, so kind of you to worry about what strangers might think.

The Economist has been very welcoming to, and forgiving of Barak Obama since he first ran for president. I am confused by this. His performance as president has not increased or preserved the strength of the USA as much as could have been accomplished within the his term. He has pursued the economic policies of a leveler. One example of this is that in a time of severe recession, instead of making his first priority that of encouraging additional job creation, instead, he chose to spend his efforts on a new healthcare entitlement program. Thus he has done things in the wrong order, as this kind of new entitlement ought only to be considered to be affordable when the economy is once again brought to good health.

Also, as for foreign policy, the western world has come into conflict with the various incarnations of empires of the middle east many times within the last several centuries, and our values differ from theirs in ways that are hard to imagine can be negotiated into irrelevance. The foundation of the country of Israel in the last century had physically split the Middle East from North Africa, thereby slowing the rate of economic growth of these regions so that they are not as much of a geopolital challenge to the Western powers as they otherwise would be, and also resulting in that we may purchase their oil at a lower cost than would be possible if they had grown their economies at a faster rate. Yet Mr. Obama has reversed these priorities in this area. He has given little attention to Israel, and has instead given increased attention to the nations that tolerate Sharia Law. This makes sense in some manner since he, Barak Obama, was raised at one point, in Indonesia, by a Muslim step-father.
On the other hand, Mit Romney has been a successful capitalist/business man, and governor. He has stated that he would make his first priority to be the creation of jobs, and that he would also back the traditional position of the Western powers in supporting Israel, as well as many other differences in a similar vein.
Yet the majority of articles in The Economist tend to be very forgiving of Barak Obama, and they tend to give cool, and rather skeptical treatment of his Western Capitalist foes.
I am confused. The name of your magazine is The Economist. Here we have a case of a Socialist that favors the Middle East sans Israel, versus a Capitalist whom has indicated support for Israel. Please elucidate.

The Oil sisters are looking forward to the neo-Bushshit Romney to invade Iran to boost oil prices and hence, bring more jobs and profits. They will be able to frack up all over the place at home without much environmental concerns to get to the oil.

In the upcoming debate (assuming Obama is awake this time around), Obama should keep bringing up the colossal foreign policy failures of the last Republican president.

And once Romney distances himself from Bush (as he will be forced to), Obama should ask Romney HOW he would implement his 'brilliant new policies' with the SAME TEAM that misled Bush into attacking the wrong country and were unable to capture Bin Laden for TWO presidential terms.

Tell me, please, what responsibility Romney has for the foreign policy of (I assume you mean George H. W.) Bush and therefore the necessity for Romney to distance himself from those policies?

And why do you assume that the "SAME TEAM" would be in place? I feel quite sure that neither Colin Powell nor Donald Rumsfeld, for example, would be brought back into a Romney administration. Perhaps you think otherwise.

Barak Obama is not running against the president prior to him. He would best serve us Americans, in my opinion, by focusing on the present and the future. He is in his fourth year in office, and is fixated on the man before him, four years ago. This gets old, and weak as an excuse four years on.
In any case, the middle east was not out of control four years ago. During President Obama's term, many countries in the middle east have been in a state of open revolt. Witness Libya, Egypt, Syria, and others. A few of our Embasies have been torched. This has occurred entirely on Obama's watch. These things did not happen during the last Republican president's term. Barak will not even talk with the Isreali Prime minister in public, as large parts of the middle east are in upheaval, and as Iran gets incrementally closer, daily, to having a nuclear weapon. Maybe Obama's stratagem is to wait and attack Iran, after they have a functional nuclear weapon. Colossal foreign policy failure? It seems there are many to choose from.

While I am not fan of President Obama, he should not follow your advice.

This is considering that President Obama has kept in place the vast majority of the foreign policies set by Bush 43 this would be suicide because all Romney would have to do it point them out thus showing Obama is really no different than Bush.

The main faults of President Obama in foreign policy is when he deviated from Bush Policy or whenever he opens his mouth around a hot mic, or his administration releases classified documents/info that throws allies and agents under the bus.

Obama had his hands full sorting out the military misadventures of Bush. Both wars have been lost. Obama has wisely refrained from another military misadventure - in Iran. Netanyahu is trying to bait America to do Israel's dirty work. In any case, Iran has signed the NPT - Israel refuses to sign.

"Tell me, please, what responsibility Romney has for the foreign policy of (I assume you mean George H. W.) Bush"

Perhaps you are unaware that they both belong to a party called the "Republican" party (which has financed & staffed their presidential election bids... and their administrative teams, if/when elected).

"He is in his fourth year in office, and is fixated on the man before him, four years ago. This gets old, and weak as an excuse four years on."

I know, 4 years is enough time to settle those little military misadventures. So, the moment Obama took office he should have ordered the military out of Iraq (that very day).

So that today, instead of fixating on a made-up problem (Iran trying to build one nuclear bomb to counter the hundreds built be Israel), the Republicans could point to a real problem... the disintegration of Iraq (and its takeover by Al Quaeda)

"I know, 4 years is enough time to settle those little military misadventures" - your comment. In general, I agree with you, except that:

- It is very difficult for a US president to say (publicly) that the war in Iraq was lost.
- And Israel was keen for the US to keep its troops there.
- A related issue is a disintegration of Afghanistan.

On balance, he took his time ending the military misadventures - but, perhaps, these things do take time.

In the late 1960's Romney's foreign policy was to live in France for two and one-half years whilst on a draft deferment during the Vietnam War.

Romney might need to make a second retraction of his comments about the bottom 47 percent of Americans. After all, this is the demographic from which the US military recruits its soldiers to fight and die in America's wars. The children of investment bankers do not serve in the military.

Based on his pact with Bibi, his greatest legacy gift will be the invasion and occupation of Iran as a way of giving jobs to hundreds of thousand of boots on the ground and more importantly, the military industrial complex which can then get funding for its war equipment without any question.

I am in shock. Because for the first time in ages (if ever) I actually find myself in general agreement with you. I disagree that the prospect of giving employment to hundreds of thousands via occupation of Iran figures even marginally in the thinking of Romney's advisors. But otherwise....

In the past America has survived a number of big mistakes and survived. But now our country have been greatly weakened abroad by a pair of disastrous military adventures and weakened at home by a deep economic recession. There is now little room for error.

Empty saber rattling rhetoric from Romney, a man who during a time of war had every opportunity to enlist and didn't, a father of five fighting age sons who all had opportunities to enlist after 9/11, and didn't, is the last thing this country needs right now. If this weak man's pathetic effort to look strong wasn't so dangerous it would be all be laughable.

Too bad. If you aren't willing to fight and die for your country, and insist on governing it, in essence to be the person asking others to fight and die for it, then I think you'd be exhibiting some cognitive dissonance.

If Mittens wants not to dirty his hands and thinks there are other ways to serve, he can go do humanitarian work, like building houses across the country aka Habitat For Humanity.

The early mormons of the 19th century did have soliders but that was out of necessity as they had to literally fight for survival due to the hostility towards them.

However later on this changed in the modern era.

How many mormon Generals?

While mormons have risen to the highest positions in government and finance. CEO's of major corporations, governors, senators, congressmen, the military is one field from which they have kept their distance.

American diplomacy is an oxymoron.
Obama's speech was a good start towards diplomacy but not closing Guantanamo indicated it was rhetoric over substance. Obama is a huge improvement to Bush on foreign policy but decades of slapping the rest of the world around cannot be forgotten over night. Romney is offering a return to Bush's openly aggressive foreign policy which will remove any goodwill towards America that may have been gained during Obama's term. The underlying message is, if we can't force you to love us we'll force you to fear us.
America, if you want the rest of the world to love you start by realising that:
- Not everyone wants to be an American
- You are not the "Leader of the free world", you are the democracy with the largest military force
- God bless America, and every other country in the world
- The actions of a fundamentalist minority do not represent the actions of a sovereign nation
- The world is not black and white

I am flabbergasted by this comment and others I have seen in the comment section. Apparently a few nice speeches and one or two handwaves and poof magically American foreign policy has changed!!!!
You do realize that President Obama has kept in place the majority of Bush foreign policy?
If anything this ignorance about American foreign policy is why foreign countries and people dislike it so.

The world didn't put up with Napoleon, did not put up with Hitler, did not put up with Cheney (Bush was only his puppet), did not put up with world-conquering communists either - so, I believe that it will most likely not put up with a wishful super Mitt either...

I'd like to agree, but unfortunately, Cheney WAS tolerated by the world (read US, leader of the "free" world),and has enjoyed a long, lucrative, influential life.
I wish we hadn't tolerated him, but he's got away with everything he ever devised with his shady friends, both known and otherwise. If he hadn't been put up with, he'd have been exiled (Napoleon), killed after being hunted down (Adolf), or at the very least, answering questions for his actions.
I hope that the "not putting up with" will begin before Mittens the next warmongering muppet even gets in this time, not 8 years later when perhaps the final damage has been done in your and my name.

Speaking of wishful thinking and magical strategies, that seems to be precisely the Obama administration's core foreign policy philosophy. Despite claims by the One, electing Obama president did not automatically make the Middle East like or respect the US any more. Killing Osama bin Laden did not get rid of al-Qaeda. For every country that entered into the so-called 'Arab spring', the jihadis were right there licking their chops at the sudden windfall of opportunity. The Economist conveniently ignored another very important speech on American foreign policy given by CBS journalist Lara Logan. She stated in no unequivocal terms: 'Eleven years later, “they” still hate us, now more than ever. The Taliban and al-Qaida have not been vanquished. They’re coming back.
I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand that there is a major lie being propagated . . .”
The lies of the Obama administration are painfully clear to those who are paying attention to the international scene. As they peddle appeasement, continue the war on the war on terror, and stand proud to be ashamed of America, our ambassador is murdered and our embassies are burned. This misguided exercise in paralytic self-loathing must come to an end.

"As they peddle appeasement, continue the war on the war on terror, and stand proud to be ashamed of America, our ambassador is murdered and our embassies are burned."

In a single sentence, you claim that the Obama administration is peddling appeasement and then claim that it is continuing the war on terror.

Unless, of course, you meant that the Obama administration is 'appeasing' Middle Eastern civilians by not carpet-bombing them into smithereens before a certain number of them stage an anti-American protest that does no tangible harm (Chris Stevens was killed in a well-coordinated attack by militants).

Which embassies were burned? Serious question. I count one diplomatic mission, which ≠ an embassy. Much less plural embassies. Al Qaeda still has a brand name but is broken into a lot of dissolute little bands without the central organization they enjoyed under the Taliban, a hundred Al Qaeda of Bobs. Our ambassador appears to have been murdered by a Libyan group with some ties to AQ in the Maghreb, which is not what those shrieking "OMG someone died it must be Al Qaeda no need to investigate or think!!" were arguing. (There are places to fault Obama's foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. But the argument that AQ is still what it was, or that failing to scream "gotta be AQ!" hysterically enough hours after the ambassador's murder was a dereliction, aren't it.)

I vote on foreign policy, part of the 5%. Romney's bold plan to have all the governments in the Middle East be different governments than the ones in place now, apparently by the sheer force of his will and "resolve" and "not apologizing", is not serious. The Republicans could potentially have put up a challenger who had some serious ideas that would earn my vote, but Romney is a joke on foreign policy. It obviously bores him to tears. A month before the election, this area in which the president has the most power and direct influence bores him.

If Republicans had cared about nominating someone who knew the first thing about foreign policy (let alone cared), they would have put up Huntsman. But they were totally uninterested, beyond reflexive blind support for Israel and enthusiasm for whatever war might come along.

So there was never a chance of you getting even some cogent criticism of Obama, let alone a reasonable alternative. Sorry.

Moderate Massachusetts Mitt Romney Etch A Sketch Romney...
Didn't he dodge the Vietnam War?
His kids...
How many have been in the military?
(Mr.Fox, now you can lay in with "Fortunate Son".)
NPWFTL
Regards

Let's see. Under Reagan we got bombed in Lebanon, and cut and ran. Under Shrub the WTC was destroyed, while under his father it was bombed. The Cole was bombed under Clinton. And under Carter our embassy was taken over. The irony being Carter leaned on the Shah to stop oppressing his people, leading to the return of the Ayatolla, who returned the favor by putting him out of office. Iran's Ayatollas are fools, or at Kohmeni was. A lot more would have been gained by eorking with Carter. Such is the way of extremists and ideologues.
So tell me again how strong or sensible Mittens is here. On top of it, I am pretty sure what he means by people who share our values are is Isreal, which from a Middle Eastern perspective would lend people to think we approve of the settlements. Let's also not forget our friends like the Shah or Saddam, or the Freedom fighters in Afghanistan (aka the Taliban). Or even the petro kings who bribe internal strife by funding wahabists who export terror.

And let's not forget the mishaps of the Bush dynasty. Elder Bush, was wise enough to let the generals run Desert Storm, but Powell was too thin blooded to push for going all the way to Bagdad. Later Elder Bush urged for internal revolt, promising support, but left the Kurds to slaughtered in droves by sitting on the sidelines after they rose up against Saddam..
Then there is Shrub, who let Donald "I wanna play Incompetent General" Rumsfeld run an understaffed war effort, with the consequent chaos the lack of boots on the ground caused. Endless sums of money have been syphoned off by private contractors, and they sort of forgot about Afghanistan. And wasn't it hinted that Cheney had intent to invade Iraq well before 9/11?
So really, do we want to have Romney whose advisors come from that same laughably incompetent pool of advisors have another go? In all likelihood, they just think they didn't try hard enough.
Lastly, with regard to Gitmo, let's remember that it was the Republicans crybabies who didn't have the guts to plant the captives on American soil, because they are so completely spineless that Americans on American soil couldn't grapple with foreign terrorists, unlike McVeigh or that blind mulla that organized the first WTC bombing.

And here's me thinking Romney would drop the embargo on Cuba (pushing free trade instead), end the embargo on Iran (cheap world oil) and pull troops out of Europe, Japan & South Korea (cut military spending, shift the military budget towards research)... and increase foreign aid to systematically eliminate preventable infectious diseases?

Right?

If neither contender is pushing a sane foreign policy, might as well focus on domestic issues.

I've been reading your comments with interest, and I've noticed that you generally advocate a greater integration of all developed countries through free trade agreements. I don't think a world compartmentalized into several spheres of influence as a result of American withdrawal is really conducive to such an outcome.

Maybe you're right there. I say the above quite brazenly, assuming that the US military doesn't actually achieve anything through its military bases in other developed countries.

Spheres of interest, it would seem, are far more determined by economic integration and policy coordination (even South Korea, Singapore & Vietnam trade far more with the US+EU than with China).

Taking a more pessimistic view for a few moments, I guess there remains real potential (given the opaque political and power structures) for China to flair up in civil war or regional war. And North Korea remains a loose cannon, which (without America on-site) South Korea could only handle with Chinese consent.

Perhaps, then, America's presence does provide worthwhile security and stability in the region. Perhaps the encirclement-of-China policy is desirable, until China actually has relaxed state control, abandoned pervasive censorship, liberalised and democratised its governing institutions.

The comment above, rather, is based on the dovish view that China can handle its own internal affairs, and probably won't pester its neighbours (trade partners) too much (sabre rattling over some pointless islands & potential tiny oilfields aside).

Romney should bait and switch on foreign policy. Obama's foreign policy record is pretty good, and people don't tend to vote on foreign issues.

The real mess in Romney's reasoning is that
1. He asserts that the middle east is closer to conflict than four years ago.
2. He asserts that by using the US's military might he can keep it away from conflict.